Is Suicide Bombing Respectable, or Acceptable?

Wrong, once again.

Engaging Iraqi police in armed combat is far less likely to instantly kill innocent non-combatants. The citizens on the street would have time to respond to the gunfire and take cover or leave the area unharmed.

Would they have that possible opportunity to flee if a homicide bomber, vehicle/human/both, suddenly detonatated a massive explosive blast on a busy street in front of a police station?

Game over. :p
 
Good article. Backed up what both of us are saying.



To be a bit argumentative, the article did say, in part:



Which seems to suggest that many of them are, in fact, young impressionable and possibly drug taking.
 
But no indication that's the norm, 9/11 being one prime example. What I found interesting is the overall logic of using suicide bombers as the 'new smart bomb' when lacking conventional weaponry. I've repeatedly read posts, primarily American, of disgust at suicide bombing and condemnation of same based on 'moral' principles undoubtedly subconsciously derived from the Christian belief system of only their God having the right to give or take life. I'm sure those who faced the longbow, gunpowder, machine gun and other at the time new forms of weaponry made the same comments with various rationalizations in their eras.
 
on a slightly more serious note, if they are doing it for my cause, I support it, if they are against me, I don't support it. It's just like wars, it's a technique used and it works (although again, very low repeat rate). There really is no defense against an attack where the killer is willing to let himself be killed in the process. That's like asking whether shooting someone else is acceptable. Obviously in extreneous circumstances (ie in a war that is justified), I would be ok with it just as war in general.
 
But in the real world US soldiers would feel threatened and shoot into a crowd of civilians as they sped away in their Humvee. People were left in the street dying. Or a stray rocket hits a civilian and they die. This happened lots of times. I've seen numerous videos of this happening. This was all during the initial war phase and occupation phase.

Before that (and in Fallujah) our bombs falling from 50,000 feet had about the same effect as a suicide bomber. O wait, WAY worse due to the mass of explosives involved.

So what you are saying is that there is a sliding scale.

Best = shooting at people with guns and only a few bystanders are killed

Worse = suicide bombings that kill nobody up to few dozen people

Worst = 1000lb bombs dropped from planes that kill hundreRAB at a pop
 
Again, agreed. They are fighting with whatever weapon they can, and that happens to be cheap explosives.

I've stated previously that we in the states do not understand the Middle Eastern mind, and I think it's this ignorance that forces many to voice their disgust. While I don't claim to understand them fully either, I do have a friend from Iran that has lent some good perspective on the minRABet of the region.

However it seems that "making a statement" is sometimes more important that hurting the enemy. I'm sure that most targets are in some way working against the bombers, but the thing that bothers me the most is that the bombers simply do not (seem to) care if they kill 100 innocent, uninvolved people, as long as they kill the one person they're after, and get the publicity and "credit" for the act.
 
Civilian populations always far outnumber actual combatants. Psychological intimidation of that civilian population to eliminate emotional support for the combat targets is often an important military objective. WW2 Allied carpet and incendiary bombing of German and Japanese cities continued long after industrial targets were destroyed for that very purpose. A-bombs were dropped on cities, not military installations. Mongols didn't kill just the warriors of a village, everyone was murdered to spread the fear, etc., etc.
 
And you know what, we glorify the "Underground" efforts of WWII. This is much the same - doing what you can against an army you can't defeat. I must say that I have come around to the thought that the suicide bombers fighting against their oppressors may not be a bad thing after all.

(I'm full of "however" today) However :p when they are making things up to justify suicide bombings, or starting conflicts with suicide bombings, my opinion is against them. Fighting the "great Satan US" by bombing a train in Spain, for example, is right off.

I'd be willing to bet that if all forces were withdrawn from the Middle East (by all countries that have forces there) that suicide bombings would continue worldwide. It's the nature of the beast I'm afraid.
 
Withdrawal still leaves the issue of supporting Israel's threat to Iran, without US assistance and/or nuclear warfare Israel could never defeat 68-million Iranians, a primary bone in the throat of Islamic extremists. Our past and present foreign policy has backed us into yet another corner which will perpetuate Islamic resistance including suicide bombings. Hopefully we'll run out of money or negotiate a truce between Israel and Iran before starting a hot world war.
 
Well, it's our own fault. The US did carve Israel out of the Middle East after WWII.

Iraq is between Israel and Iran, so they are in essence a buffer state.

How is Israel a threat to Iran? (Other than the sabre rattling that always goes on in that region, of course)
 
Israel promises war if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. That Israel already has them is, of course, fine with the US. That Pakistan, not exactly a pillar of stability, has them is not an issue. After what the US did to Iraq I'm surprised every ME country doesn't want nukes. But we'll continue the game on Israel's terms and all cope with suicide bombers.
 
Hey a suicide bomber, although delusional in their goals often times.. has to at least in some odd way respected. If they are willing to blow themselves up to take out whoever they think will advance their goals, then that has to be in some way, honorable. I know I will get slammed for this, and I expect it. But in some way, I think it says more about determination and passion to willingly blow yourself up to fight for a cause. Takes alot more guts than to pull a trigger from 500 feet away, or fire a missile from thousanRAB of miles away. Westerners think it is morally wrong and dispicable, but in a war, anything goes. America reminRAB me often times of Britain in the revolutionary war. We have such a massive, awesome military, and we expect people to fight us in a 'clean, fair fight'. The whole idea is ridiculous!
 
Back
Top